It's a bit ironic to argue against digital rights management on an iOS forum (App Store being the fortress of DRM that it is). I like the theory that people pirating a game aren't part of the consumer based likely to purchase the game so while piracy results in a "free" copy it doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale. Ultimately I think people are reasonable and willing to purchase games/content, at least we know games are profitable to make (despite piracy). As an iPod owner who often games away from internet access I'm not fond of imagining a future where petty inconveniences are implemented under the assumption it is protecting sales.
They aren't. I'm sure they couldn't care less about those people. Well maybe they care, but they know it's going to happen no matter what. The point is that those people won't be able to play online. MC is primarily an online multiplayer game, much like CoD on consoles. Yes, some people buy them just for single player and I myself enjoy playing the campaigns, but it is absolutely not the focus of the game. The developers have even stated as much. So, while you're pissing off a small section of your potential audience with the online requirement, you're pleasing the vast majority of players by giving them the best possible online experience and the ability to handle things like hacks super fast on the server-side rather than trying to pump a patch through Apple every single time an exploit is discovered. That is absolutely the motivation for them doing MC5 online only. They want to uphold the integrity of online play over everything else. I'm sure part of it is to try and fight against people pirating the game, but even in that case they've actually conceded to consumer demand before with Spider Man by updating it with an offline mode. In MC5 it's not that simple, but even still they've said that if there's extreme backlash and they're able to find a way to make it work, they'd consider adding an offline mode post-launch. So I don't think it's fair to blame Gameloft for the online requirement, or to think they're purposely putting an undue hardship on paying customers just to "fight piracy" when there's a lot more to it than that. Edit: I feel like Rip73 with these long replies
I agree with everything you said there, absolutely. But I don't really think it has a lot to do with what I mean, or with what others who dislike online-only requirements are bothered by. Online multiplayer has an online-only requirement built into it, by definition. Nothing controversial there - the second someone signs in to multiplayer or connects to a server, Gameloft can and should do everything in their power to preserve the integrity of the game. Any hacks, trainers, mods, anything like that should be an immediate ban. Anyone playing multiplayer on a pirated app should be immediately banned. But what I'm trying to say is, none of this really has anything to do with an online-only requirement in the single player campaign. To be clear, I am ONLY talking about the single player mode here, I am NOT blaming Gameloft for policing the hell out of their multiplayer servers. Someone downloading a cracked app and only playing single player doesn't ruin the game for the rest of us - as long as that person stays offline, we'll never see him. What he does has no impact on the experience of those of us who chose to do the right thing. Meanwhile, the online-only requirement for those of us who purchased the game DOES impact us. We can't play if we have no reception, we may have data overages depending on our plans, and on how well Gameloft optimizes their server connections, we may lose high-scores or progress if something goes wrong on Gameloft's end. We all have a worse product as a result of this requirement - not as a result of pirates playing offline.
By the way, Ryan from Gameloft just said this on Twitter: "I'm being told that if you jailbreak, try running your device in airplane mode and fire up #MC5. Could solve connection issues." https://twitter.com/OofitsRyan/status/492442373461639169 My brain hurts.
Wait, with all things considered, it's a mentality for Devs to pander to the larger community and put the rest as second class consumers? I'm sorry, but that's what it seems like... If the game was made for multiplayer then why the hell was there a single player in the first place? "There's single player but you have to play it online." It's just a big contradiction.
The arguments as least as old as Steam, you should at least have an offline mode after a period of authentication. It's not a new solution and can be viable for both parties, you don't make customers jump through hoops or cripple instances in which they can enjoy your game. Well you can, but don't expect them to jump for it or your next game.
Ever buy a DVD, put it in and be forced to watch adverts for other movies, then the stupid anti-piracy video? Did you think to yourself, had I just download a pirated version I wouldn't have to watch this? Did some people get annoyed and stop buying DVDs? Probably. They were pushed into piracy by industry. Once they start it's unlikely they'll stop. When people find DRM intrusive the same thing is likely to happen. The idea that a company can shut down their servers and your game no longer works, but, a pirated copy would play fine is crazy. I do understand wanting to stop pirating. I don't see implementing online only as helping the multiplayer "fairness" of a game. It has to be online to play multiplayer and the same checks can be done when someone chooses to log in. No? Also I believe most pirated copies do not equate to a lost sale. No revenue is lost as this person would likely never buy the game. What percentage would? What amount of revenue is lost by the people that don't buy always online games? Is it good for companies? I don't know. We'll see in the future, maybe.
Eli-we both know that the percentage of ios users who jailbreak and pirate are insignificant. Perhaps it's different in China and perhaps other developing markets, but as for US share? It always been a bit of a lark IMO.
Battery drain is multiplied exponentially when an app actively accesses wifi/cell data. Besides...enough games have gotten neutered through updates. Are the servers likely to stay active longer? Alas there is no "secure rom" style crack site for non-jb'd devices. If it weren't for the PC community, and the "hackers", my copy of Silent Hunter 3 would be a shiny frisbee.
Yet somehow devs who produce apps which cost 20 dollars and up are still doing well. Where's the piracy?
Folks also have to consider that you are essentially placing the shelf life of a game in the hands of the developer. The always online required connection means that they have all the power to tell you you can't play your game at any point in time, and not even have to provide a reason for it. Sure, we can hope the games authentication servers will stay live for years, but there is no guarantee of it. A server can shut down tomorrow for good for no reason and the developer can fly with the money and we'd have no say as consumers. Therein lies the problem with this model; it is a very anti consumer way of doing business. Period. Sure, it may be a odd occurrence but who wants to gamble on the odds of any game being the next "Tales of..." fiasco, getting its servers shutdown six months after release?... It's no different than what EA has been doing for a while to its sports games; shutting down servers for them two years after they release to force consumers to buy the new iteration if they want to play a sports game online, only in this case you're locked out of the whole game when they do, not just the multiplayer! For some of us that just doesn't sit well! Sorry, but I'm am somewhat of an older gamer. I've been gaming since I was a kid back when Atari 2600, Colecovision and the Commodore 64 were the home entertainment systems. I still have working systems and games from every generation since then too, so for me, it just seems at odds with my personal sensibilities that a developer can sell me a game and then at any point tell me "oh well, you're done playing that!". I don't buy books and the books store calls and tell me they are taking their copy back, I don't buy a film and the distributor asks for its return. As it stands, this move to digital has turned the customer to a leaser who is subject to give up their purchased but not owned property at the distributors beckon whims. I just don't see how anyone can argue for that as some positive direction we have turned... So allow me to make my point: I believe there SHOULD be an online verification, only because they [developers] should be able to protect their interests... For when you want to play ONLINE! To implement it over the whole game, to me, is not a counter piracy measure as they may publicly claim it to be. It's a retention and control tool, to ensure they maintain a tighter custodianship over the product and can dictate the market and consumer base as to when the customer base must upgrade. Period. If they were truly implementing a verification feature for the intents of solely combating piracy and preserving the online experience they could have done that without an always online requirement for the single player experience. This move is not meeting consumers at some middle ground, this is a deliberate one sided move passed off as it being for the consumers good, like an older brother telling you you're getting the better deal because he is giving you the one unbroken cookie while he takes the four broken ones, all the while telling you how you got the better deal because your cookie is not broken like all of his are; as he smiles at you like he knows something you don't...
Perhaps it's generational. I began gaming on the exact same machines-an Atari 2600, Colecoviosion, and a c64. Add in an Atari 5200 for good measure.
If a game requires that you have a connection to play it, then yes, you will at some point be unable to play that game when that developer chooses to stop supporting their authentication server. Some would argue that they would be done with the game anyway by that time so it doesn't matter to them as a point of conceit or justification... But to me that just seems somewhat defeatist to this course change in digital "ownership". As an example, look at the problems The Amazing Spider-man 2 suffered shortly after release, with people complaining that they could not even play the game because they couldn't connect to the authentication server. That was a game people paid for, not just some freemium game supported by IAP's (although the game has it's fair share of those too). The problem was supposedly fixed shortly after, and then after that the online always requirement was removed from the single player portion of the game (yet in their infinite wisdom they didn't think to do this with MC5?) Sure, we could argue that that is an isolated incident, but when a pretty large publisher like Gameloft can't even ensure stability of their authentication servers, what does that say for the rest of the iOS publishers that attempt to adopt this trend?
So true, I worry for the futur gameloft games. Now I am having a lot of fun with vivid games GOD fire. It's short but give the impression of playing god of war. Warning. (God fire is not like devil may cry, rather a clone of god of war)
